Republic v Sports Disputes Tribunal & 3 others Ex-parte Moses Adagala & 2 others (suing as officials of Muhoroni Youth Football Club) [2018] KEELRC 1563 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Sports Disputes Tribunal cannot decide employment disputes—the Employment and Labour Relations Court quashed its ruling and confirmed only it hears such cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Sports Disputes Tribunal under Section 59 of the Sports Act
The Tribunal only hears appeals from national sports organisations whose rules allow such appeals, sports-related disputes that all parties agree to refer, and appeals from the Registrar's decisions; it had no jurisdiction over the employment dispute
The court interpreted Section 59(a), (b) and (c) of the Sports Act. It found no consent by the parties to refer the dispute under 59(b): a response to a dispute cannot be imputed as consent, and any consent must precede reference. The statement of claim by the Interested Parties themselves showed the dispute concerned breach and termination of employment contracts under the Employment Act, so the Tribunal could not hear it.
Exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment disputes
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act confer exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction on the ELRC over employment disputes, with only narrow exceptions for gazetted magistrates
Section 12(1) of the ELRC Act read with Article 162(2)(a) and (3) makes the ELRC's jurisdiction over employment disputes exclusive. Section 87(2) of the Employment Act provides no court other than the Industrial Court shall determine such disputes. The only exception is Section 29(3) and (4) of the ELRC Act allowing gazetted magistrates. None of these extended jurisdiction to the Sports Tribunal.
Consequence of acting without jurisdiction
A tribunal acting without jurisdiction acts in vain and its decision is a nullity liable to be quashed by certiorari
Relying on the Owners of Vessel Lillian 'S' v Caltex Oil principle that jurisdiction is everything and a court without jurisdiction must down its tools, the court held the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in hearing and determining the dispute. Accordingly, the judicial review application succeeded and certiorari issued to quash the decision.
Legal principles established
#- The Sports Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear employment matters; such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Consent to refer a dispute to the Tribunal under Section 59(b) must be agreed before reference and cannot be imputed from a reaction or response to a dispute
Court orders
#- 1.An order of judicial review in the nature of certiorari removing into the Employment and Labour Relations Court the decision of the Sports Tribunal dated 22nd March 2017 in Sports Disputes Tribunal Case No. 9 of 2017 and quashing the same
- 2.No orders for costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court pursuant to leave granted on 16th June 2017; Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Sports Disputes Tribunal & 3 others Ex-parte Moses Adagala & 2 others (suing as officials of Muhoroni Youth Football Club) [2018] KEELRC 1563 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Application (Ex-parte Muhoroni Youth Football Club), leave granted 16th June 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1563/eng@2018-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.